Allowed

Jomon @ Jomon Chandy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jun 2014Bail Appl./3221/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 326 r/w Sec.34 IPC arising from an assault incident, the court granted bail subject to surrender for interrogation, reporting, depositing money, not intimidating witnesses, and paying compensation if liable, with cancellation possible on violation.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted conditioned on submission of Rs.10,000 bond, deposit, and reporting requirements for two months with authority to cancel bail on violation of conditions.

Jomon @ Jomon Chandy Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/19TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3221 of 2014

¶6

CRIME NO. 454/2014 OF PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:

¶8

1. JOMON @ JOMONCHANDI, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.M.C.CHANDY, ALEKKATTU HOUSE, THEKKUMBAGAM, NIRANAM, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

2. SUNIL @ DEVARAJAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, PALLIKANDATHIL HOUSE, KADAPRA, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PULIKEEZHU, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Kss

¶16

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶17

Bail Appl.No. 3221 of 2014 ()

¶18

Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2014

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.454 of 2014 of the Pulikeezhu Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehend arrest.

¶21

2.The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that on 28.04.2014 at about 5.30 p.m., the petitioners who were driving/traveling in a tipper lorry intercepted the de facto complainant who was riding a motor cycle and assaulted him with iron lever and granite stone causing hurt/grievous hurt. The iron lever is recovered but the granite stone is not so far recovered. Three persons sustained injuries.

¶22

3.The learned counsel submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are not true. It is submitted that dispute arose from the first petitioner marrying a girl belonging to Scheduled Caste. According to the learned counsel,when the petitioners were driving/traveling in the tipper lorry, de facto

¶23

Bail Appl.No. 3221 of 2014 () 2

¶24

complainant and others chased them on a motor cycle and at the place of occurrence the petitioners were attacked. On the information given by the first petitioner, the police registered Crime No.451 of 2014 against the de facto complainant and others for various offences.

¶25

4.I have gone through the relevant files and facts and find that the alleged incidents occurred at the same day, time and place. But it is seen that some of the injured in Crime No.454 of 2014 suffered fracture. In the circumstance, I am inclined to grant relief to the petitioners but protecting interest of the de facto complainant as well.

¶26

The application is disposed as above.

¶27

Petitioners shall surrender before the

¶28

officer investigating the case on 16.06.2014 at about 10 am for interrogation.

¶29

In case interrogation is not completed that day, the petitioners shall appear before the officer investigating the case any other day/days and time as directed

¶30

¶31

Bail Appl.No. 3221 of 2014 ()

¶32

by the investigating officer.

¶33

The petitioners shall co-operate with investigation of the case.

¶34

In case the petitioners are arrested, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.

¶35

On such production the petitioners shall be released if not required to be detained otherwise) on their executing bond for `20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions:

¶36

a. One of the sureties shall be a close relative of any of the petitioners.

¶37

b. Petitioners shall deposit `10,000/(Rupees ten thousand only) each in a nationalized bank (initially for a period of two years and renewable as per the order of the learned magistrate) and produce the Fixed

¶38

¶39

Bail Appl.No. 3221 of 2014 ()

¶40

Deposit receipt before the learned magistrate while executing the bail bond.

¶41

c. In case the petitioners or any of them are/is found liable to pay compensation to the de facto complainant, such compensation to the extent possible could be realised from the amount in deposit.

¶42

d. Petitioners shall report to the investigating officer on every alternate Saturday between 10 a.m and 12 p.m. for a period of two months or until filing of the final report whichever is earlier.

¶43

e. Petitioners shall report to the investigating officer as and when required for interrogation.

¶44

f. Petitioners shall not influence or intimidate any of the witnesses.

¶45

g. Petitioners shall not get involved any offence during the period of this bail.

¶46

h. In case any of conditions Nos.(d) to (g) is violated, it is open to the investigating officer to file application before the learned

¶47

Bail Appl.No. 3221 of 2014 ()

¶48

¶49

Magistrate for cancellation of the bail granted hereby, as held in P.K.Shaji v.State of Kerala [AIR 2006 SC 100].

¶50

sd/THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE

¶51

AMV

¶52

/TRUE COPY/

¶53

P.A.TO JUDGE

Jomon @ Jomon Chandy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jomon @ Jomon Chandy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Vs State of Kerala

Rejin Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Kumar @ Wilson Vs State of Kerala

Pradeepkumar Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh G. Nair Vs State of Kerala

Jinu Vs State of Kerala